or, since i had to memorize for my Torts exam "good language" as she calls it, i wrote it over and over again til i got it. But i started in like November with that because it was a shytload. A model answer for negligence, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Consent, plus all 8 intentional torts, their definitions, and the elements

Just a bit of warning; I have found that "memorizing" creates tunnel vision, & usu. leads to failure in issue spotting. I mean Civ. Pro. usu. can be broken into 5 Q.'s(1) What State you can sue in? (PJ)(2) What claim you may bring? (SJ-1331/32/67)(3) What Court house to file in? (Venue, Transfer, removal, forum non conveniens etc,) (4) What apllicable law? (Eerie/Hanna)(5) What's the scope of the suit? (Joinder claims/parties: Rule13,14,18,19,20 etc etc.)

So if you do memorize, make sure to always ask those 5 Q.s & look deeper, e.g. u have 1404 memorized that may lead to just "Removal by D. to fed Ct." for short-hand, may be insufficient, & ur brain will be a little too conlusory about issues (at least this what i have found). This advice isn't golden or pure of course, but thought it could help!! best of luck--M.

Just a bit of warning; I have found that "memorizing" creates tunnel vision, & usu. leads to failure in issue spotting. I mean Civ. Pro. usu. can be broken into 5 Q.'s(1) What State you can sue in? (PJ)(2) What claim you may bring? (SJ-1331/32/67)(3) What Court house to file in? (Venue, Transfer, removal, forum non conveniens etc,) (4) What apllicable law? (Eerie/Hanna)(5) What's the scope of the suit? (Joinder claims/parties: Rule13,14,18,19,20 etc etc.)

So if you do memorize, make sure to always ask those 5 Q.s & look deeper, e.g. u have 1404 memorized that may lead to just "Removal by D. to fed Ct." for short-hand, may be insufficient, & ur brain will be a little too conlusory about issues (at least this what i have found). This advice isn't golden or pure of course, but thought it could help!! best of luck--M.

Thats good

Thats basically how Arthur Miller summed it up on the Sum and Substance CD's which are the absolute best

He gives you a checklist with everything to look for and spot and tips on what probably wont be on your exam and what will be

Memorizing did nothing for me, looking at my outline i made and developing model answers for CIV Pro Issues helped me

Yeah, I'm in pretty much absolute panic mode right now because I'm still finishing my outline, which I had planned to read and retain the info, maybe make some charts, etc. to help me remember. My test is Thursday. I'm freaking out. I've finished that sort of thing with personal jurisdiction, and I think I'm OK with Erie, but ughh. What to do, what to do.

Also, does anyone have a flow chart or anything for personal juris? I don't know if I have it right.. specifically the Shoe test. Through the development of the other cases, does it basically come down to the following:

a two-prong analysis, one of which is the minimum contacts (looked at through purposeful availment, which includes minimal contacts (ones in which the contacts must spawn the claim), stream-of-commerce issues (where judges in Asahi split, some saying you needed to purposely direct action toward that state; the other side said no, it's enough just to be aware your product will end up in the state), and also substantial and pervasive contacts (which can lead to general juris, but this is mostly limited to businesses). The other prong is the traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice, in which you consider the relatedness of the claim to the contacts, the burden on D, the interest of P, the interest of the forum state, interstate judicial interests, etc.

And then sometimes you can have juris if there's substantial fairness, but scampy contacts (Burger King)And then even if there's contacts, you may not have juris if it's substantially unfair (Asahi)

Does all this sound reasonably correct? I did it from memory, so I"ll be super happy if so.

I also like that someone cautioned about memorizing --- that is still an understanding that I really need to master...

but yeah my civpro prof was excellent... he had stuff like:

For class actions: you need C-A-N-T to certify it: Commonality, Numerousity, Adaquacy, Typicality... to file a complaint, it must be "Well Pleaded" plus you need short and plain statements of (1)jurisdiction, (2) claim (3) prayer

I made a little mini outline with all summaries of the points of law (1 page) -- I think that helped just to get the association down and not forget to brush over certain points of law in the analysis...

But yeah don't listen too much to me--- this might as well be entitled "How I Got a 'C'" (j/k), but I'm still waiting on those grades at this point.